JANJIRSINGH NAGARSINGH TAK Vs. R D TYAGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner by this Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the Order dated 17th January 1996 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai Respondent No.1 under the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 ( hereinafter, referred to as the "act" for the sake of brevity ) preventively detaining the petitioner. In the grounds accompanying the order of detention, the detaining authority has stated that the petitioner detenu is involved in violent criminal activities in order to maintain himself, that he is terrorising the people and has thus become potential danger to the safety of the law abiding and peace loving citizens of the localities of Mithagar Road, Mulund (East) and the areas adjoining thereto, within the jurisdiction of Police Station in Mumbai.

(2.) IT is further stated that the petitioner detenu is a member of Shikalkar Gang and that he alongwith his associates moves about armed with deadly weapons such as chopper and does not hesitate to use the same while committing serious offences such as dacoity, robbery, criminal intimidation etc. and the action taken against the petitioner under the normal law of the land is found inadequate and ineffective to deter the petitioner detenu from indulging in criminal activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. IT is further stated that the involvement of the petitioner detenu in the incident narrated in paragraph 4 of the grounds of detention, which took place in the recent past, goes to show the tendency of the petitioner and his inclination to continue with the criminal activities in future. IT is stated that on 18-07-1995, at about 07. 40 hours, Smt. Shubhada Shirish Gangan, resident of an apartment on Mithagar Road, Mulund (East), Mumbai, submitted a complaint stating that on 17-07-1995 after about 23.00 hours, when she alongwith the members of her family were asleep in their flat, the door of her flat was opened with a bang. The petitioner alongwith his associates Gabbarsingh Amarsingh Tak and Takkusingh Ajitsingh Kalyani entered her flat. They were carrying choppers in their hands. IT is further stated that thereafter the other associates of the petitioner, who were not known to the said complainant Shubhada, entered the flat with weapons in their hands and closed the door and fastened the latch from inside. IT is further alleged that the associate of the petitioner Gabbarsing held a chopper at Smt. Shubhada and asked her to hand over her gold bangles, gold ring, cash and keys of the cupboard. IT is alleged that being frightened with the threats and the weapons, Smt. Shubhada handed over her gold bangles, gold ring to the associate of the petitioner. IT is further alleged that the petitioner and his associates also searched the cupboard in the flat and took out articles of value. IT is further alleged that the door of one of the rooms, which was closed, was opened under threat and cash from the cupboard in that room was also taken. While leaving the flat, the petitioner and his associates threatened the complainant with dire consequences in case she reports the matter to the police. IT is alleged that before entering the flat, the telephone wire of the telephone was cut. IT is further alleged that due to sudden attack, Smt. Shubhada, her husband and other members of the family were so frightened that for a considerable length of time they did not even move from their place. IT is only when their neighbour by name Shri Jadhav opened the door, which was latched from outside, that the complainant Smt. Shubhada and other members of their family moved from the place. Ultimately, the matter was reported to the police and investigation commenced.

(3.) THE grounds of detention then refer to the details in the statements of various persons. It is thereafter stated in the grounds of detention that respondent No.1 was subjectively satisfied that the petitioner detenu is a weapon wielding desperado and a notorious criminal and therefore a perpetual danger to the society at large and that he has created terror in the minds of the peace loving and law abiding citizens of the localities of Mithagar Road, Mulund (East), and the area adjoining thereto , within the jurisdiction of Mulund Police Station, in Adjoining Mumbai. It further stated that the people in the said areas and localities are experiencing a sense of insecurity and are living and carrying out their daily routine under the constant shadow of fear, whereby the even tempo of life of the society is disturbed. It is further stated that the petitioner's activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the said localities and areas in Adjoining Mumbai. It is further stated that the petitioner has not been granted bail in Mulund Police Station C. R. No.406/95 and that the petitioner is in custody. It is further stated that in course of time the petitioner is likely to get an order of bail. It is further stated that in view of the tendencies or inclinations of the petitioner and the offences committed by him, respondent no. 1 is satisfied that after having availed of the bail facilities and in the event of becoming a free person, the petitioner is likely to revert to similar criminal activities, prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in future and that it is necessary to detain the petitioner preventively.